本文關(guān)鍵詞： 法律工具主義 權(quán)力制約 法治　出處：《中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：法律工具主義的形成有其深刻的哲學(xué)背景、深厚的理論淵源以及豐厚的實(shí)踐基礎(chǔ)。為準(zhǔn)確揭示法律工具主義，并為當(dāng)今中國(guó)的社會(huì)主義法治建設(shè)提供有益借鑒和啟示，本文按“古今中外”的格局，以歷史的演進(jìn)為主線，以中國(guó)的文化傳統(tǒng)為切入點(diǎn)，，從哲學(xué)理?yè)?jù)、思想淵源、政治基礎(chǔ)和現(xiàn)代實(shí)踐四個(gè)維度闡述我國(guó)的法律工具主義，力求全面、系統(tǒng)地概括我國(guó)法律工具主義的形成。本文主要應(yīng)用歷史和比較的分析方法。追尋歷史的足跡，將有助于我們更好地解決法治之路應(yīng)往何處去的問(wèn)題。 全文共分四個(gè)部分。第一部分從先秦哲學(xué)中的法天觀、道器觀、性惡觀三個(gè)層面闡述我國(guó)法律工具主義的哲學(xué)理?yè)?jù)。對(duì)法天觀的論述旨在闡明一種直覺(jué)形象思維所導(dǎo)致的理性思辨思維缺乏；對(duì)道器觀的論述旨在闡明法為什么作為“器物”而不是“道理”；對(duì)性惡觀的論述旨在闡明用法這一“器物”“治人”的倫理依據(jù)。第二部分選取歷史上對(duì)我國(guó)法律思想產(chǎn)生過(guò)重要影響的兩條“支流”——先秦法家和后漢儒家，從二者的法律思想角度進(jìn)一步闡述我國(guó)法律工具主義的兩種理論淵源。第三部分論述秦漢以來(lái)我國(guó)古代的政治體制，并在和西方古代的政治體制對(duì)比中指出，缺乏對(duì)最高權(quán)力（王權(quán)）的制約是造成法律工具主義的政治因素。最后一部分闡述社會(huì)主義下的蘇聯(lián)和我國(guó)的法律工具主義實(shí)踐，其中對(duì)我國(guó)建國(guó)以來(lái)的法律實(shí)踐，根據(jù)法律工具主義為其服務(wù)的對(duì)象不同，筆者將之分為“黨本位”下的法律工具主義和“國(guó)家本位”下的法律工具主義兩個(gè)不同時(shí)期，對(duì)執(zhí)政黨在這兩個(gè)時(shí)期表現(xiàn)的法律工具主義分別展開(kāi)論述，旨在揭示這種法律工具主義的現(xiàn)代實(shí)踐基礎(chǔ)。 本文認(rèn)為，要根除法律工具主義這一思想，首先要深化政治體制改革，其中最重要的就是使政治活動(dòng)法律化；其次要培育社會(huì)自治力量，盡快完善關(guān)于人民結(jié)社和自治的辦法，打破國(guó)家對(duì)社會(huì)全面管控的模式；最后要賦以司法機(jī)關(guān)更大的，至少是不低于行政機(jī)關(guān)的權(quán)力。
[Abstract]:The formation of legal instrumentalism has its profound philosophical background, deep theoretical origin and rich practical foundation. According to the pattern of "ancient, modern and foreign", taking the evolution of history as the main line and the Chinese cultural tradition as the breakthrough point, this paper expounds the legal instrumentalism of our country from the four dimensions of philosophical motivation, ideological origin, political foundation and modern practice. This paper mainly applies the historical and comparative analysis methods to trace the track of history, which will help us to solve the problem of where the road of rule of law should go. The first part is from the view of law and heaven in the philosophy of pre-Qin Dynasty, the view of Taoism and the view of organ. This paper expounds the philosophical basis of legal instrumentalism in our country from three aspects of the view of nature and evil. The purpose of the discussion is to clarify the lack of rational thinking caused by a kind of intuitive image thinking. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why law is regarded as "object" rather than "reason", and to clarify the ethical basis of its use as "object" and "rule of man". The second part is to choose the history of the law of our country. The two "tributaries" that had important influence on the thought were pre-Qin legalists and post-Han Confucianists. The third part discusses the ancient political system of our country since Qin and Han dynasties, and points out in comparison with the western ancient political system. The lack of restriction on the supreme power (Wang Quan) is the political factor that causes legal instrumentalism. The last part expounds the practice of legal instrumentalism in the Soviet Union and China under socialism, including the legal practice since the founding of the people's Republic of China. According to the different objects of legal instrumentalism, the author divides it into two different periods: the legal instrumentalism under the Party standard and the legal instrumentalism under the state standard. This paper discusses respectively the legal instrumentalism of the ruling party in these two periods in order to reveal the modern practical basis of this kind of legal instrumentalism. This paper holds that to eradicate the idea of legal instrumentalism, first of all, we should deepen the reform of the political system, the most important of which is to legalize political activities, and secondly, we should cultivate the forces of social autonomy. We should improve the methods of people's association and autonomy as soon as possible, break the pattern of the state's overall control over society; finally, we should empower the judiciary with greater powers, at least not lower than the administrative organs.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D920.0

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐慶利;;中體西用:功利主義與中國(guó)近代道器觀[J];長(zhǎng)春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期

2 何家弘;法律不是專政的工具[J];法律與生活;2002年01期

3 王志華;;蘇聯(lián)法影響中國(guó)法的幾點(diǎn)思考[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

4 徐忠明;;道與器:關(guān)于“律”的文化解說(shuō)[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年05期

5 蔡玉霞;論法律工具主義[J];理論觀察;2004年04期

6 傅國(guó)涌;角色意識(shí):一個(gè)解讀近代中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)型的新視角[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)論壇;2005年08期

7 郭為桂;我國(guó)社會(huì)主義憲政建設(shè)初期的歷史境遇——法律工具主義的視角[J];中共福建省委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

8 蔡杰,毛忠強(qiáng);對(duì)我國(guó)刑事訴訟法中國(guó)家本位主義的反思[J];天津市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

9 廖中洪;民事程序立法中的國(guó)家本位主義批判——對(duì)我國(guó)民事訴訟立法指導(dǎo)思想的反思[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2002年05期

10 黃頌杰;;靈魂說(shuō):西方哲學(xué)的誕生地和秘密——柏拉圖和亞里士多德靈魂說(shuō)研究[J];學(xué)術(shù)月刊;2006年08期

本文編號(hào)：1553979